Update share settings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint: false), the description discloses that an API key is required, explains the Pro default of keeping files while subscribed, and specifies that expiresAt must be a future ISO date within 90 days for automatic deletion. These are non-obvious behavioral details that help the agent anticipate side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then adding essential caveats. No filler or repetition; every clause adds information (owned file, API key, Pro default, 90-day expiry).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential context: what can be changed, the ownership requirement, auth need, and the retention default/expiry behavior. Missing interactions (e.g., protect vs direct) are partially covered by schema descriptions, so the description is adequately complete for agent selection and initial invocation, though not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 64%, and the description adds meaning to at least one parameter (expiresAt: future ISO date within 90 days) and reiterates visibility and direct download. However, many parameters (protect, extendTtl, immutable, idempotencyKey) are not elaborated in the description, leaving most of the burden on the schema. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the moderate coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'change' and names the exact resources/settings: visibility, direct download, and retention. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'owned file' and the update intent, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context: only for owned files, requires API key, and notes Pro defaults and the 90-day expiry behavior. While explicit alternatives to other tools are not named, the 'owned file' constraint and the focus on share settings define when to use it and implicitly when not to.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.